On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:22 PM Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 13:13, Thomas Wouters <thomas@python.org> wrote:
> The reason for this PEP is that pattern matching will make '_' (but not any other names) have the behaviour suggested in this PEP, but *only* in pattern matching.

That's something that should be addressed or debated in the pattern
matching PEP. I'm -1 on this PEP being *solely* to patch over a wart
in the pattern matching PEP, and the other justifications for the PEP
as a standalone proposal don't seem to be convincing people (they
don't convince me either, FWIW).

I did say, in the original email:

This proposal doesn't necessarily require pattern matching to be accepted -- the new syntax stands well enough on its own -- but I'm recommending this *not* be accepted if pattern matching using the same syntax is not also accepted. The benefit without pattern matching is real but small, and in my opinion it's not worth the added complexity.  

Thomas Wouters <thomas@python.org>

Hi! I'm an email virus! Think twice before sending your email to help me spread!